• Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
  • Consider registering! Fewer and higher quality ads, no emails you don't want, access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Even if you just want to lurk, there are a lot of good reasons to register!

Penn State Cult (Joe Knew)

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
409fold said:
I'm honestly surprised the Pennsylvania AG tried to prosecute under the 2005 law (as opposed to 1995) in the 1st place - any 1st-year law school student should know better.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I'm not a law student at all and I'd like to think that I'd know better.
What's the difference, in this case, between the 2005 law and the 1995 law?
 
Upvote 0
Zurp said:
What's the difference, in this case, between the 2005 law and the 1995 law?
Click to expand...

I think the primary difference between the two is that in 1995, there was a much broader, (some might say) vague definition of what exactly constitutes horseplay. I believe there were also some discrepancies in what qualifies someone to be classified as a victim (or whatever you want to call them). In either case there were some consistencies that applied in both laws, for example - BEAT NEBRASKA!
 
Upvote 0
409fold said:
I have no love lost for Graham Spanier.

But --- I have to disagree with you calling that a "technicality."

That was a violation of Spanier's constitutional right as an American citizen. That's not a "technicality", it's a right given to all American citizens.

I'm honestly surprised the Pennsylvania AG tried to prosecute under the 2005 law (as opposed to 1995) in the 1st place - any 1st-year law school student should know better.
Click to expand...

Yeah, my kid agrees. Was popped for checking a text on his mobile phone while pulling away from a stop sign. Not a moving violation until 7/1/19 in IL. Saved his porkbelly.
 
Upvote 0
Zurp said:
Agreed. I'm not a law student at all and I'd like to think that I'd know better.
What's the difference, in this case, between the 2005 law and the 1995 law?
Click to expand...

I don't know the exact details - other than the 2005 law has a broader definition of things than the 1995 law (e.g., what AJHawkFan already said is correct).

As a side-bar:

It's a well-known fact that Tom Corbett and Graham Spanier HATE each other, and that goes back prior to 2011. They feuded a lot as regards how much Harrisburg funded Penn State.

Which is fine, but I tend to think that Corbett, a very powerful Republican in Pennsylvania politics and Governor for a time, had a strong influence in terms of the AG deciding to try Spanier under the 2005 law as opposed to the 1995 law.

Corbett was your typical "politician with a vendetta" in that regard - he had to have known that prosecuting under the 2005 law was wrong but "damn the rules, arm the torpedoes, I have a score to settle."

Again, I don't love Spanier - but the above isn't right either. Paterno acolytes or anybody else who points that out isn't wrong.

Then on another side-bar: there's the fact that the PA Attorney General has gone from Republican -> Democrat -> Republican from 2011 to 2019. The 2 Republican AGs were more aggressive vs. Spanier than the 1 Democrat.

In fact, that 1 Democrat (Kathleen Kane) was, for a very brief period of time, considered the "great white somewhat-attractive-for-a-50-year-old brunette hope" among many Paterno acolytes because of the fact that she was very combative against Corbett.

But then Kane shot herself in the foot in terms of future influence because of something ELSE: orchestrating a public release of confidential grand jury evidence! She's now completely disbarred - AND in prison!

Good old Pennsylvania politics.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
409fold said:
I don't know the exact details - other than the 2005 law has a broader definition of things than the 1995 law (e.g., what AJHawkFan already said is correct).

As a side-bar:

It's a well-known fact that Tom Corbett and Graham Spanier HATE each other, and that goes back prior to 2011. They feuded a lot as regards how much Harrisburg funded Penn State.

Which is fine, but I tend to think that Corbett, a very powerful Republican in Pennsylvania politics and Governor for a time, had a strong influence in terms of the AG deciding to try Spanier under the 2005 law as opposed to the 1995 law.

Corbett was your typical "politician with a vendetta" in that regard - he had to have known that prosecuting under the 2005 law was wrong but "damn the rules, arm the torpedoes, I have a score to settle."

Again, I don't love Spanier - but the above isn't right either. Paterno acolytes or anybody else who points that out isn't wrong.

Then on another side-bar: there's the fact that the PA Attorney General has gone from Republican -> Democrat -> Republican from 2011 to 2019. The 2 Republican AGs were more aggressive vs. Spanier than the 1 Democrat.

In fact, that 1 Democrat (Kathleen Kane) was, for a very brief period of time, considered the "great white somewhat-attractive-for-a-50-year-old brunette hope" among many Paterno acolytes because of the fact that she was very combative against Corbett.

But then Kane shot herself in the foot in terms of future influence because of something ELSE: orchestrating a public release of confidential grand jury evidence! She's now completely disbarred - AND in prison!

Good old Pennsylvania politics.
Click to expand...

Meanwhile, Illinois says, ‘Hold my beer.’
 
Upvote 0
409fold said:
"damn the rules, arm the torpedoes, I have a score to settle."
Click to expand...

Again, I'm no lawyer, but it seems like a really easy way for someone to poke a hole in their argument. Without getting into too much into my business, we survey systems under specific criteria. The criteria could potentially change, and systems that passed in 2010 might not pass in 2020, despite similar data. Say an inspector tries to red-tag a client for their data in 2018 that passed the 2010 criteria, but failed the 2020 criteria. I'd be able to recognize the issue immediately and defend the client. I'd hope that a lawyer getting paid to defend this kind of thing would know whether to prosecute a 2001 issue based on a 1995 law or a 2005 law.
 
Upvote 0
Zurp said:
Again, I'm no lawyer, but it seems like a really easy way for someone to poke a hole in their argument. Without getting into too much into my business, we survey systems under specific criteria. The criteria could potentially change, and systems that passed in 2010 might not pass in 2020, despite similar data. Say an inspector tries to red-tag a client for their data in 2018 that passed the 2010 criteria, but failed the 2020 criteria. I'd be able to recognize the issue immediately and defend the client. I'd hope that a lawyer getting paid to defend this kind of thing would know whether to prosecute a 2001 issue based on a 1995 law or a 2005 law.
Click to expand...
Wtf is this. I thought this thread was for slinging mud, not rational well though out discussion. The internet is to be used for two things, porn and trolling. Think I’m going to head over to the Reddit poli board and make a case that Trump is our greatest president then spend a couple hours wearing out my wrist on pornhub.
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top